Sustainable development never caught on among policy-makers anywhere, except for use in speeches. We are far from meeting the needs of the present and far from giving any serious policy thought to the needs of future, larger generations... This failure has led to a multi-pronged calamity, or clash of calamities – the hard rain that is falling now and is going to get worse.
Bob Dylan wrote “Hard Rain” during the Cuban crisis. He painted a grim, end-of-the-world picture of an acid, killing rain, the very opposite of Chaucer’s shoures sote (sweet showers) that pierce the drought and renew the earth. Dylan’s rain kills: people, animals, plants and the very fabric of evolution.
As the threat of a superpower nuclear exchange has receded, we have grown careless in our control of nuclear materials and stockpiles of weapons. So nuclear blasts remain a real threat.
However, the truly astonishing thing about Dylan’s song of more than 40 years ago is that its lyrics seem to describe in broad, poetic strokes a more complex, intertwined, and multi-pronged planet-rending scenario, one only beginning to be thought about in the early 1960s. It is hard to describe in a few words, but is best summed up as a wilful, inane and immoral carelessness in regard both to people and planet by our leaders and ourselves.
Great, wrenching catastrophes will occur this century, causing unimaginable human suffering and environmental destruction, disrupting human development and natural evolution.
How can I be so sure? Because the suffering and destruction began some time ago.
You hadn’t noticed? No. Our failure to notice is one of the main reasons there is no stopping this hard rain.
The naïve observer
I rushed away from my university, skipping my graduation ceremony, straight to a school in Tanzania, East Africa, for members of revolutionary parties in southern Africa: from Angola, Namibia, South Africa, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe. First, I was trying to keep from being drafted and sent to the Vietnam War. Second, I had never been out of the United States, had grown up in the South during the end of the United States’ own apartheid system (buses I rode as a boy in Atlanta had signs saying “White passengers will seat from front; colored passengers will seat from rear.”); so the strangest and most romantic place I could think of visiting was Africa. Third, I had a deep desire to be able to say casually in later life that I had “trained African revolutionaries”.
I did train them, mainly to read Dickens and Shakespeare, do maths, and raise chickens (my grandfather had a chicken farm). They were good, eager students. Their parties took them away for long periods of time to train them in revolution; so I was free to wander about East Africa, sneak into parts of the Serengeti closed to tourists, have close encounters with lions and rhino, learn to pilot a plane in the bush, and generally soak up Africa.
The huge question that kept hitting me in the face was “How is Tanzania – how is all of Africa – going to develop economically while keeping its vast quantity and diversity of animals and ecosystems?” The huge herds of wildebeest were not going to make it in a few parks the size of Yellowstone or Yosemite in the United States.
I decided I wanted to watch “development” happen around the world. I wanted to write about it, and how it could be balanced with protecting the environment. So I cancelled plans for law school and became a journalist.
It was good timing. I got a job in New York with Reuters, the British news agency, in 1972, hired because I had taught in a British education system in East Africa and was deemed to be fluent in both American and English, languages my English bosses perceived as quite different. The year 1972 also marked the UN environment conference in Stockholm.
The gathering “raised awareness”, but failed to convince a lot of developing-world governments, who saw concern over plants and animals as a luxury they could not afford. Brazil became a sort of spokes-government for this view, arguing that pollution meant money. They were happy to have more pollution and less rainforest if they could have the economic prosperity that seemed to go with pollution in the wealthier North.
Reuters took me to London and made me global science editor, despite my never having studied science. (“You won’t write over anyone’s head,” said the editor.) I spent several happy years covering science around the world: climbing into Soviet fusion reactors, travelling the drylands of the western Sudan witnessing the sands flowing in over people’s homes (a process caused by overuse of fragile drylands that the French would label desertification), and trying not to appear stupid talking to Nobel laureates about the universe’s first two minutes after the Big Bang.
It was also a good time to watch and write about the environment/development debate. Scientists were beginning to worry seriously about the loss of species and of habitats such as the rainforests and coral reefs, about climate change, desertification, and overuse of topsoil and fresh water.
In 1980, these alarming trends were gathered together by the US government and reported in a book called The Global 2000 Report to the President. My old friend Gus Speth, who was with the Carter Administration then and is now dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, published a book in 2004 in which he compared the trends reported and predicted in Global 2000 to present reality:
■ population would grow from 4.5 billion then to 6.3 billion in 2000 (actual number in 2004, 6.3 billion);
■ tropical forests would be cut down at the rate of an acre a second (this is what has happened);
■ some 15% to 20% of all species would be extinct by 2000, mostly due to tropical deforestation (extinction rates remain controversial, but Speth quotes several experts to show that the Global 2000 figure might have been a little high but was roughly right);
■ about six million hectares a year of drylands were being rendered nearly barren by desertification (this rate continues today);
■ Global 2000 had this to say about climate change: “If the projected rates of increase in fossil fuel combustion… were to continue, the doubling of the CO2 content of the atmosphere could be expected after the middle of the next century… The result could be significant alterations in precipitation patterns around the world and a 2 degree to 3 degree Celsius rise in temperatures in the middle latitudes of the earth.”1 (This prediction holds today.)
The point is that we knew roughly the issues and the scale of their effects a quarter of a century ago. We have failed to act on all fronts. With knowledge comes responsibility. So this failure has been a global moral failure as well as a failure of political will.
In the early 80s I pulled my career chair even closer to the environment/development debate and joined the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), a London-based think tank. At the time, there was a deep schism between environmentalists and “developmentalists”. Many of the former wanted to halt economic growth to save the environment, at their most extreme arguing that it was wrong to vaccinate children in the developing world because population increase was bad for the environment. The Green groups back then gave hardly a thought to the poor, or the effects of their day-to-day struggle for food and firewood on the environment.
The development groups, and most governments, put people first and saw the destruction of forests, productive drylands and waterways as a reasonable price to be paid for economic development. Barbara Ward, the wise woman who founded IIED, saw that people cannot pull themselves out of poverty in an impoverished environment and that the environment cannot be walled off from the effects of human activity. She identified a need to balance the two concerns, to organize the apparent trade-offs between economic development and environmental protection.
However, in the early 80s those paying attention began to notice a chilling syndrome. There was very little economic development. Africa was sliding backwards; it was the “lost decade” in Latin America, and Asia had not begun to take off. But at the same time, environmental destruction was continuing apace. There was no trade-off; there was failure on both fronts.
From the United Nations’ point of view, this meant that neither the UN Environment Programme nor the UN Development Programme was doing its job. Under pressure from various member countries, mainly the Scandinavians and Japan, the UN established the grandly titled World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) and asked Norway’s off-again-on-again Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland to chair it and help pick about two dozen commissioners. In the mid-80s it began meeting and holding hearings around the world.
I was called in to help the Commission write its report, sitting in its meetings to try to turn the commissioners’ observations and conclusions into readable prose. The theme of the report, “sustainable development”, had been used in the literature before but without clear definition. The Brundtland Commission, as it came to be called (with Mrs. Brundtland earning the delightful title of “Madame Chairman”), defined it as forms of development that “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”.
The concept is both extremely complex and extremely simple. Its complexity has led to myriad attempts to define it better. But in its simpler manifestations, it means things like “don’t eat the seeds you need to plant for next year’s harvest” and “don’t burn down your house in winter to keep warm”. On a global level, it meant “do not try to get richer by destroying life-support systems”.
“Finally!” I thought. “Environment and development have finally been united in one phrase. Make progress today in ways that meet human needs but do not rob future generations of environmental resources such as clean air, drinkable water, topsoil, trees and fish.” We were a bit short of examples of sustainable development, but could offer a host of examples of current, unsustainable forms of “progress”.
Energy use offered an excellent example of unsustainability. In 1980, global energy consumption stood at around 10 Terawatts (TW) per year. A Terawatt is a billion kilowatts, and a Terawatt per year is roughly equivalent to burning a billion tonnes of coal. But forget the TW and think of the figure 10. If per capita energy use remained the same as in 1980 – that is, a European using 80 times the energy of a sub-Saharan African – then a population of 8.2 billion people in 2025 would need about 14TW, the Commission’s report reckoned. That 40% increase seemed to assure serious climate change.
But, if the developing world actually developed along the carbon pathway of the industrial world and started using energy at the same rates as Europeans and North Americans, then the same global population would require 55TW. I suspected that a quintupling of energy use, mostly carbon fuels, would give earth the runaway greenhouse effect that rules the planet Venus.
However, there was a chilling logic to these figures that the Commission did not go into. They seemed to me to suggest three choices:
1. We could conserve energy and urgently develop and switch to new and renewable energy sources – wind, solar, hydro, wave, safe nuclear.
2. Or we in the industrial countries could tell the developing world that we had done the maths and, for the sake of the planet, they could not be allowed to develop. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, would have to continue to cook on firewood, dung and straw.
3. Or we could do nothing – “business as usual” – and follow the carbon road into climate cataclysm.
To my naïve surprise, we chose the last option, business as usual. Economic development for as far ahead as we can see will be based mainly on carbon: coal, oil and gas.
The Commission’s report, which was dubbed The Brundtland Report, published in 1987, called for the convening of an “earth summit” in five years; and to the astonishment of the commissioners, who did not expect to be taken seriously, the Earth Summit was duly held in Rio in 1992. Many heads of state duly attended, and awareness was duly raised. But the Earth Summit changed little.
In 1987, commissioners went home to their native countries where they had been ministers and chief scientists and spread the notion of sustainable development. The US commissioner was William Ruckelshaus, twice head of the US Environmental Protection Agency. He was a Republican, and Ronald Reagan was then the president of a Republican government that did not care much for either environment or development issues. So Ruckelshaus kept fairly quiet.
Mrs. Brundtland, then once again prime minister of Norway, by chance had a state visit to the US scheduled right after her report was published. Her aides were warned by Reagan’s aides that she should not mention the findings of her report. The US bureaucrats were not afraid that Reagan would disagree; they were afraid that in what was rapidly becoming his dotage, he would embrace the concept of sustainable development and thus upset US policies. So the concept never gained much foothold in the United States.
The rain today
In fact, sustainable development never caught on among policy-makers anywhere, except for use in speeches. We are far from meeting the needs of the present and far from giving any serious policy thought to the needs of future, larger generations.
This failure has led to the multi-pronged calamity, or clash of calamities, that I alluded to at the beginning – the hard rain that is falling now and is going to get worse.
First, most of the world is poor, and over one-sixth of the global population is suffering “extreme” or “absolute” poverty, the sort of poverty that kills.
Second, a few big countries have suddenly started to develop economically, but in the old-fashioned carbon-based, resource-raping methods of the European Industrial Revolution.
Third, our political systems are wholly inadequate, or inappropriate, to manage these challenges. So the three prongs of the present crisis (from the Greek word krisis, meaning “time to choose”) are people, planet and political systems.
Sustainable development is a more radical concept than most people realize in that its first clause calls for meeting the needs of the present. That is not happening.
There are various definitions and numbers associated with world poverty. One of the simplest is a World Bank estimation that 11% of the world’s people are well-off; 11% have a moderate income, and 78% are poor.2 But that includes various levels of poverty. Almost half the people on earth (nearly three billion) try to exist on the equivalent of less than $2 a day. The absolute poor try to exist on the equivalent of $1 a day. There are 1.1 billion of these people.
They cannot meet their basic needs – food, clean water, shelter – and by definition not meeting basic needs often leads to premature death. This is roughly the same billion who entered the new millennium unable to read or write, thus with little hope of escaping poverty. Their children tend to die in large numbers – about 1.7 million every year due to old diseases like diarrhoea and sleeping sickness. Their rain is now.
Poverty statistics are often mind-numbing and impossible to relate to individual lives. The Gross Domestic Product of the poorest 48 nations (about a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined. In 1820 the richest country was three times richer than the poorest country; by the 1990s, the richest country was 72 times richer than the poorest. The one-fifth of the world’s population that lives in the “rich world” consumes 86% of the world’s goods.
It is outrageous, grossly unfair, horribly short-sighted, and no way to run a planet. And few of us notice.
Poor people simply cannot live sustainably; they are forced to overuse and degrade scarce resources, whether firewood or topsoil or water in arid areas. Countries with majorities of poor citizens cannot afford honest, effective government, infrastructure such as roads and communications systems, education and healthcare. Thus they do not attract foreign investment. It is as hard for a poor country to pull itself out of poverty as for a poor person.
It is sometimes claimed that poverty spawns terrorism. In fact terrorists often simply use poverty as an excuse for their actions. But there are links. Poor countries tend to be more unstable. Poverty and instability are part of the syndrome of “failed states”. Such states tend to breed or harbour violence and terrorism. In the failed states of Africa, this terror stays mostly in-country, sending refugees over borders into neighbouring states. The terrorism harboured in the failed state of Afghanistan became global in 2001.
Celebrity US economist Jeffrey Sachs was right in spirit then he wrote: “Since Sept. 11, 2001, the US has launched a war on terrorism, but it has neglected the deeper causes of global instability. The nearly $5 billion that the US will spend this year on the military will never buy lasting peace if the US continues to spend only one-thirtieth of that, around $16 million, to address the plight of the poorest of the poor, whose societies are destabilized by extreme poverty.”3
The wealthier countries have actually developed policies that keep poor countries poor. They mostly come in the form of rich countries using their muscle and wealth to keep weaker, poorer countries from competing with them. The US and Europe pay their rich farmers $300 billion a year to overproduce commodities such as cotton and sugar, thereby lowering world prices for poor farmers in poor countries. When international treaties are negotiated, rich countries send delegations of dozens of lawyers and experts, overwhelming the one or two delegates poor countries can afford or find.
At the time of writing the Doha round of world trade talks is stalled, mainly over issues of agricultural subsidies, tariffs and barriers. Economists agree that a fairer, more liberal world trade system would pump billions more dollars into that system, most of it going to the wealthier countries. But these countries are too blinded by their own short-term, knee-jerk competitiveness even to act in their own self-interest. Today the 20% living in the world’s wealthier countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment; the bottom fifth of the world’s population benefits from about 1% of global trade.
There is much talk about increasing foreign aid to help countries meet the Millennium Assessment Goals, a set of targets hammered together by the UN in 2000, which include reducing by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day, reducing by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger, and ensuring that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling. Most of these goals are meant to be reached by 2015, but almost as soon as they were announced, experts began to report on how little progress was being made.
There is much that poor countries can do to develop without spending great amounts of money: educate women and ensure that they have control of their own fertility, focus on domestic food security (rather than exports), and so on.
But development does require capital, and foreign aid has never been much help because it has never been proportional to the scale of the needs. Also, aid programmes are based first on the priorities of the giving nations, second on the priorities of companies in the giving nations, third on the priorities of the recipient nations’ governments (i.e. the élite, whose priorities tend not to have much to do with the priorities of their poorest citizens). The poor, the rhetorical focus of all aid, are only a fourth-level priority. Aid simply cannot get through all the other filters to reach the poor.
Terrorism is important to this debate for another reason. Who could have imagined that the US would have responded to the September 11 attack by invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with it and had no weapons of mass destruction to threaten the US or anyone else? It bombed civilians. It imprisoned and tortured citizens, using the techniques of ex-dictator Saddam Hussein. It allowed the looting of cultural treasures and the destruction of crucial infrastructure.
All of this has turned the Iraq War into a machine producing an almost limitless supply of terrorists who hate the United States and the West. In mid-2005 a leaked US Central Intelligence Agency report registered its concern that the Iraq conflict was pulling in disaffected young people from around the Muslim world and turning them into skilled insurgents. Their skills will eventually be used elsewhere. Chronic terrorism will continue to keep poverty and the environment at the bottom of the issue priority list.
In the early 1990s, I left IIED to work for Swiss billionaire Stephan Schmidheiny, who wanted to spend a lot of his money promoting sustainable development; I helped him set up a foundation to do so.
We put some of the first money into a bold and brash idea: a scientific survey of all of the planet’s ecosystems. The plan was sparked by the fear that while global warming was a real threat, a more alarming and immediate threat was the decline of ecosystems and the effects of this on human society.
So the survey, eventually taken on officially by the UN in 2000 and involving over 1,360 scientists, did not simply look at the health of plants, animals and pristine parkland, but at the quality of the services that ecosystems provide to human beings.
It announced its findings in March 2005. About 60% (15 out of 24) of the ecosystem services studied are being degraded or used unsustainably, including freshwater “capture fisheries” (wild fish as opposed to farmed fish), air and water purification, the regulation of regional and local climate, natural hazards and pests.
This degradation of our life-support systems could accelerate rapidly during the first half of this century and “is a barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals”, the survey report said. It could also lead to “accelerating, abrupt, potentially irreversible changes”, examples of which include “disease emergence, abrupt alterations in water quality, the creation of ‘dead zones’ in coastal waters, the collapse of fisheries, and shifts in regional climate”. The losses of ecosystem services “are being borne disproportionately by the poor, are contributing to growing inequities and disparities across groups of people, and are sometimes the principal factor causing poverty and social conflict”.
The crises are thus connected: environmental breakdown causes poverty and social conflict, and poverty and social conflict cause environmental breakdown.
Did such alarming news, released simultaneously around the world, alarm citizens and decision-makers? No, it alarmed only the scientists involved in the study. The New York Times, usually sound on these issues, published nothing on the day of release, saving it for an inside piece in its science section almost a week later. The front page of that science section was devoted to interesting facts about snake venom. If such news is not deemed important by news reporters, then how can society be expected to organize to cope with the threats?
Climate change remains the summation of all environmental threats. Our modern world is delicate and finely balanced; almost any change is a shock. Changes in rainfall and sunlight will upset finely calibrated farming systems. Forests and grasslands and reefs will perish as they are unable to adapt fast enough.
Old diseases in new places will upset health systems. I moved back to the United States in the early part of this millennium and watched the alarm that a few cases of West Nile Virus caused in New York City. As climate changes, “tropical” diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, snail fever and others will all start spreading.
We think of climate change as gradual, a slow rise in temperature and in sea levels. Yet nature can be awfully sudden: water remains liquid right up the temperature scale until suddenly at 100 degrees Celsius it becomes steam. Pouring a lot of extra energy into the atmosphere could have relatively sudden consequences; predictions include a reversal of the Atlantic Gulf Stream, which would leave temperate parts of North America and north Europe with a climate more like Siberia’s; a melting of the Arctic permafrost could release enough trapped methane to radically accelerate the warming. Our grandchildren may be the first to learn whether these worries were justifiable.
There have been numerous studies of ways of coping with and decreasing the effects of climate change. Most involve a mix of approaches – more use of gas, nuclear, new and renewable energy sources; more energy-efficient vehicles and buildings; capturing and storing carbon emissions. None of these reports has been paid any serious attention. We continue to choose “business as usual”.
Energy demand could double by the year 2050, and rapidly developing countries such as China and India are building coal-fired power plants to provide that energy. Carbon hangs around in the atmosphere for about a century, so much of what is there now will be joined by new gases over the coming decades. We have already laid the momentum for those “abrupt, potentially irreversible changes”.
When George W. Bush ran for president in 2000, he promised federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Once elected, he changed his mind, labelling the science “incomplete”. In 2002, the US EPA sent a 260-page report to the UN summing up US research into climate change. The report predicted that growing greenhouse gas emissions could warm the United States by several degrees Celsius during the 21st century. Bush dismissed the report as something issued by “the bureaucracy”.
Thus we have in the United States a fundamentalist president who governs by hunch, who does not listen to anyone not in agreement with him, and who is capable of casually contradicting his best scientists. Much more frightening than that, the great majority of the general public is not alarmed at any of this.
Other heads of government talk more coherently about environmental issues, especially climate change. Jacques Chirac says it is “absolutely obvious that global warming has started”. Tony Blair has made it one of his prime talking points. Indeed, the newspapers and other media of Europe are full of sensible accounts of environment and development challenges and appropriate responses.
But little is done. For some time it has seemed as if the other leaders were comfortable blaming US intransigence for their own inability to act.
It is emotionally satisfying to note the crucial issues with which politicians are not dealing and accuse them of stupidity, short-sightedness, political cowardice. But in an odd way, they are realists, reacting appropriately to the realities of the political systems we have created. I used to troop up to Capitol Hill in Washington every now and then to testify before some Congressional committee on issues such as African poverty, population, or desertification. I would suggest things to be done. Afterwards, members of Congress would say privately, “Of course, you are right. But there are just no votes in it. No one gets elected in this country promising to fix African poverty.”
That is the bottom line. Our democracies have a hard time doing anything novel for which there are few votes, such as mitigating climate change, better managing ecosystems, or creating a global trading system that would help poor countries develop. There are not nearly enough votes in the US, or Europe, or anywhere else. We have the knowledge, data and technologies to do all of those things. And doing them would probably save money and decrease terror and destruction over time. But there are no votes.
US Vice-President Al Gore nailed his colours to the environmental mast when in office by publishing a book called Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. But when he ran for president in 2000 he kept his mouth pretty firmly shut about such issues. There are no votes.
There are brief eruptions that look almost like change. The July 2005 Gleneagles summit of the G8 nations (the wealthy) looked set to make progress on climate change. The European leaders almost promised progress. The chairman’s summary of the meeting said, “All of us agreed that climate change is happening now, that human activity is contributing to it, and that it could affect every part of the globe.” It added that “we resolved to take urgent action to meet the challenges we face.”
What is that action? It is “a new Dialogue between the G8 nations and other countries with significant energy needs, consistent with the aims and principles of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.”
Michael McCarthy, environment editor for the Independent newspaper in the UK wrote after the meeting that the agreement to talk to the leading developing nations, whose greenhouse emissions are rapidly increasing, “is the most important step to counter climate change since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997”.4 The tragedy is that he is right. So very little is happening that those concerned about these issues now numbly grasp at straws and report “progress”.
Business as usual
How can we be so stupid, so short-sighted? How can we ignore the suffering of billions, the threats to other species, and the links between the two?
The answer is bleakly simple: we cannot get these issues on our political radar screens. The poor, the majority in many developing countries, have little or no political power. Those with political power are not affected. Democracy cannot seem to cope with serious, complex issues that do not affect voters’ daily lives, and yet democracy is the best political system available.
I will not be killed by climate change or poverty. I am passionate about these issues because as a young man I chose to watch them, and have been held spellbound for the past 40 years at our failure to cope with them.
The question that got me started – how can Tanzania develop without destroying its environmental assets? – has not been answered over all those years. There were about 15 million Tanzanians when I lived there. There are about 37 million today. That population growth has taken its toll on natural habitat. Although the national income per head is only $290 – well below a dollar a day, and low even for Africa – the economy has been growing rapidly lately, and some commentators see it poised for an economic take-off. Yet there is no concern in Tanzania about the sustainability of such a take-off.
When Ethiopia and a swath of countries south of the Sahara sank into drought and famine in the mid-1980s, Irish rocker Bob Geldof organized the Band Aid single and Live Aid concerts and raised millions of dollars for Africa. He asked me to form a committee to help spend the money. We thought back then that famine would never be allowed in Africa again after all this attention. But it has come and gone regularly there over the past 20 years. As the leaders deliberated in Scotland, and as a gracefully ageing Geldof demanded action, children were dying steadily of hunger in Niger.
The question now is not so much “How could we have learned so little in all these years?” but “How could we have learned so much and done so little?” We understand the causes and cures of environmental degradation. We know roughly how nations pull themselves out of poverty.
Dylan’s song was prophetic almost half a century ago. Now the prophecy has been, and is being, chillingly fulfilled: “sad forests”, “dead oceans”, “where the people are many and their hands are all empty”, “where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten”.
How did he get it so right so long ago? It is not too late to listen and act. But we will neither listen nor act.
Hard Rain 1st edition, May 2006
1 James Gustave Speth, Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment (New Haven, CT, 2004, Yale University Press)
2 Branko Milanovic and Shlomo Yitzhaki, “Decomposing World Income Distribution: Does the World Have a Middle Class?” (Washington, DC, 2001, The World Bank)
3 Jeffrey Sachs, “The End of Poverty”, Time, New York: 14 March 2005, Vol. 165, Iss. 11, pg. 42
4 Michael McCarthy, “Most important move on the environment since Kyoto”, Independent, London: 9 July 2005